Super_Ideal_Rock

#3 is the best for this stone since it's the "airiest" and it's also very elegant. I don't like #2 because even though it's not a bezel, it has a gallery that would close off the pavillion and make the stone look too dark. You want to keep the pavillion open as much as possible. #1 is pretty, but again, I don't think the halo will let in sufficient light.

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

I like #1 and #3 - they''re the most delicate looking and will allow light to get to the stone. How big is your stone? I would only like 4-6 if your stone were a substantial size, i.e. bigger than 7 or 8 mm.

Brilliant_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

My only qualm with the one I liked is that it''s six prong. I would do a four prong setting. Too many prongs, so again, it darkens the stone. It''s also not necessary to have a six prong setting on a stone that''s not a diamond. The six prongs are basically for added security since diamonds are thousands of dollars, but I think your spinel will be safe enough in a four prong.

Brilliant_Rock

I really like #5, but the site states that it is for a .75-1.00 ct stone. I emailed the seller to see if they could do anything for it to fit my stone, but I haven''t heard back. I agree, it''s unique and different looking. The diamond tcw is .20 and it says they are G color but I1 clarity. Do you think, that since they are so small, the I1 will affect the appearance much?

#3 has VS, G-H diamonds. But again, they are tiny so it might not matter.

Ideal_Rock

Regarding the diamonds, you might not notice inclusions in I1 stones of that size (except by looking really closely), but if you''d place an identical piece with VS stones next to it, the diference in brilliance would be obvious.

Brilliant_Rock

Thanks again for all of your advice and suggestions, I really appreciate it!!

One last option....I found this one. It is very similar to #3, but has .50ctw, F-G, VS2-SI1 diamonds, as opposed to the .15ctw, F-G, VS2-SI1 of #3. It is about $140 more, but I really like the profile on this one [but I think it might be easy to get dirty!].

Super_Ideal_Rock

Date: 2/15/2009 3:37:54 PMAuthor: karee888
Thanks again for all of your advice and suggestions, I really appreciate it!!

One last option....I found this one. It is very similar to #3, but has .50ctw, F-G, VS2-SI1 diamonds, as opposed to the .15ctw, F-G, VS2-SI1 of #3. It is about $140 more, but I really like the profile on this one [but I think it might be easy to get dirty!].

That''s a very pretty ring, and if the diamonds are up to par with the description, then I think it''s worth the $140 extra. I don''t know about that jeweler, so I''m hoping the quality is decent. Again, my only qualm with these settngs is the six prongs. I would rather see four prongs with your stone. JMO.

Ideal_Rock

If you look at that last ring you posted, you''ll see that it''s got 16 diamonds on each side, so 32 in total or about a point and a half each. If you look at the #3, you''ll see that you can only count 5 or 6 on each side, and I''m pretty sure they would attach another photo if there were more of them (profile shot). So my guess is that #3 has only about 10-12 diamonds in total i.e. about a point and a half each.

In other words, in the more expensive one you would be paying for stones you wouldn''t even see most of the time, but you would feel them scratching your neighbouring fingers and maybe feeling uncomfortable. Not to mention you would have to be more careful with it, not to bang it from any side and watch for all those stones not to loosen and fall out (and they''re set more open than those in #3, so the chance is greater for that to happen).

Cookie & Affiliate Policy:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you have registered.
We may generate affiliate revenue through the links/ads on this site.We NEVER accept paid reviews and take great pride in providing honest opinions and objective information on products & services.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookie policy.